{"id":2994,"date":"2005-05-02T14:04:12","date_gmt":"2005-05-02T18:04:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/gigi-sohn-talks-telecom-at-harvard\/"},"modified":"2005-05-02T14:04:12","modified_gmt":"2005-05-02T18:04:12","slug":"gigi-sohn-talks-telecom-at-harvard","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/gigi-sohn-talks-telecom-at-harvard\/","title":{"rendered":"Gigi Sohn Talks Telecom at Harvard"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

“Bits” @ Harvard, May 2nd 2005
\nSpeaker: Gigi Sohn<\/p>\n

The Telecommunications Act of 2006:
\nWhat’s at Stake?<\/p>\n

PK focused on rebalancing IP, also taking on telecom issues – convergence of copyright issues and communications policy issues<\/p>\n

Telecom act was revised in 1996
\n    First major revision since 1934<\/p>\n

Why, nine years later, are we here again?
\n    Technology has changed enormously<\/p>\n

Key issues, then and now:
\n    Then: Opening up local phone competition –
\ninterconnection (with competitors); unbundling; making long distance
\ncompetitive
\n    Now:    Elimination or deregulation
\nof local phone competition regulations – phone companies don’t like
\nthose regulations. Did get some competition; Bells have challenged
\nevery scheme in court.
\n    Now: Non-discriminatory access to broadband networks
\n(“Net neutrality”). Where this issue becomes salient is when video
\ncomes into play, because cable providers will want to discriminate.
\n    Then: Convergence – RBOCs that wanted to get into
\nlong distance; telcos wanted to get into cable (must make 1\/3 available
\nto non-affiliated programmers); cable into telco; power cos into both
\n    Now: Convergence – telco into cable; regulatory
\nparity – why should these seemingly similar services be treated
\ndifferently? why should DSL be treated as common carrier but cable
\nmodem service don’t? Why treat VoIP different than regular telephony?
\n    Then: Universal service – plain old telephone service (POTS) only
\n    Now: Universal service – time for broadband? (ed: or do away with it entirely?)
\n    Then: Digital TV transition – spectrum allocation for having analog and digital during transition period
\n    Now: Spectrum allocation reform (broader) – wireless
\nproviders want a piece of spectrum and want government to be smarter
\nabout allocation and to allow sharing of spectrum.
\n    Then: Deregulation of media ownership\/license renewal – dramatic change in caps
\n    Now: Reregulation of media ownership. Gigi’s own
\ntake: agrees about need for diversity, but uncomfortable with media
\nownership cap as method – rather use tools like spectrum allocation,
\netc.
\n    Then: Content Regulation – CDA; V-Chip (mandating
\nequipment manufacturers implement parental control screening)
\n    Now: Content regulation – indency for cable too?
\n    Then: Broadband – broad statement about promotion of broadband
\n    Now: Broadband – municipal systems building their
\nown systems; companies getting bills passed that ban municipalities
\ngetting involved, even though in many cases municipalities are trying
\nto provide where commercial companies won’t – argument to be made on
\ntheir side that shouldn’t have to be competing against subsidies and
\nconsumers shouldn’t have to pay the bill in this way.
\n    Now (ed: not sure where this fits): Copy Protection – follow-up to broadcast flag case?<\/p>\n

The Players Then and Now:
\n    Then: Policymakers – Congress, commerce and
\njudiciary committees; FCC.  RBOCs. Long Distance Cos.
\nBroadcasters. Cable and Satellite Providers. Public.
\n    Now: Policymakers – Congress; FCC; Copyright Office.
\nRBOC (ILECs) – wireless telcos. CLECs – long distance and others.
\nBroadcasters. Cable and Satellite Providers (mostly don’t want to be
\nbothered; cable doesn’t want net neutrality). IP Applications Providers
\n– VoIP, Software Cos (VoIP worried about regulation). Internet Content
\nProviders – Amazon, Yahoo (they want net neutrality – IF they don’t own
\nthe pipe. Equipment\/Chip Manufacturers. State and Local Regulators.
\nPublic.<\/p>\n

PK Principles for the Next Telecom Act
\n    Open Competition Among Broadband Providers, including municipalities
\n    Open to all attached equipment
\n    Open network for all applications and content (net neutrality)
\n    Open spectrum for commercial and non-commercial uses
\n    Open to all users at affordable prices (universal service)
\n    Open use of content (copy protection should not be mandated, burdening technology)<\/p>\n

How does PK try to work to effect change?
\n    Build coalitions with companies that are on your
\nside (the Googles, the CE companies, MS – some close in the copyright
\nspace but not he telecom space: Verizon)
\n    Grassroots support – working with other public
\ninterest groups; action center; letter writing campaign to companies
\n    Enormous amount of press work and marketing – change public debate in media<\/p>\n

Q&A:
\nQ: Where is PK on software reform?
\nA: Draft bill floating around right now, not involving software
\npatents; doing so is probably not possible, but maybe a trade-off re:
\ncopyrights and patents possible. PK is focusing on the small guys in
\npatent fight – patent trolls go after the small guys first – patent
\nquality is a key issue.<\/p>\n

Q: Explain more about media ownership caps as a poor means to diversity issues
\nA: Extremely difficult to take away what people already own – hard to
\nharden caps. So practically difficult. Nothing wrong with stopping
\nwhere we are right now, though. But ultimate answer is technology – if
\nwe free up more spectrum, we strengthen broadband access, anyone can be
\ncome broadcaster. In short term, not going to match power of the Rupert
\nMurdochs, but freeing up more capacity can crease access to and
\nproduction of content – blogs, podcasts – there are more voices. Focus
\nshould be on making new voices more equal with old voices – should deal
\nwith exclusivity of allocating the pipe and spectrum. Problem is
\nspectrum allocation and exclusivity. Low power radio movement got
\nkilled by broadcasters. We should instead try to maximize efficiency
\nand use of spectrum. Also: Clear Channels are scrambling – more and
\nmore, market is turning away from terrestrial radio.<\/p>\n

Q: DO Republicans or Democrats support you?
\nA: Copyright space: Republicans more on our side – not messing with
\ntech innovation, letting market works, don’t like helping hollywood.
\nHiring Dan Glickman, a Dem, didn’t make them any happier.
\nTelecom side is more of a mixed bag – going back to PK principles
\nabove, some are regulatory, some are deregulatory.  First two
\nappeal to both; third is going to take some regulation; fourth, both
\nfeel beholden to broadcasters; fifth, depends on the politicians’
\nmunicipality; sixth, copyright issues.<\/p>\n

Q: Where does PK get its funding?
\nA: We’re now starting a membership drive. I want to bring balance to
\nmore like 1\/3 funded by corporations, 1\/3 by foundations, 1\/3 by
\nindividuals (and rich people). Corporate funding can be more steady;
\nfoundations can be fickle. I’d be lying if I said that corporate
\nallegiances didn’t affect me and the positions I take most
\nactively.  Still, doesn’t change our policy positions – we still
\nwill go to them and work with them on those issues to move them closer
\nto our view.  This is something I worry about.
\nFoundation grants are also very long processes; corporations demand a
\nlot less. Corporations can buy into you in a good way; good thing for
\npeople on capital hill to see corporate support. Have to make sure that
\nwe have broad, diverse support, otherwise we look beholden.<\/p>\n

Q: What advice do you have for college graduates working with these telecom companies?
\nA: These aren’t bad companies. Sometimes their policies are stupid;
\nsometimes their policies are nearsighted.  Bell companies people
\nthat were born and raised there, and all they know is regulated
\nmonopoly – have to change that mindset.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Bits” @ Harvard, May 2nd 2005 Speaker: Gigi Sohn The Telecommunications Act of 2006: What’s at Stake? PK focused on rebalancing IP, also taking on telecom issues – convergence of copyright issues and communications policy issues Telecom act was revised in 1996     First major revision since 1934 Why, nine years later, are we here […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":72,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2994","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2994","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/72"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2994"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2994\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2994"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}